Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
V. P. SHETTY
Versus
SR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Decided On Date: 06/05/05
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 154 - Abuses and references - Not made public - Plea to quash FIR as no prima facie case under Atrocities Act is made out - Contention if not under said Act, case under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act is made out. - Held, even though contents under Section 7(1)(d) are not made out but relevancy of Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code (FIR) is very clear and once FIR disclosing cognizable offence has been recorded it is for authorities to investigate and take action. Petition to offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Atrocities Act is concerned is quashed, but as regards under Section 7(1)(d) of PCR Act no interference is called for.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 482 and 154 - Prima facie case - Petition for quashing of FIR based on complaint ground does not disclose any insult or humiliation caused to complainant in public view - Facts show accusations and abuses related to caste of the complainant were made but not in public view. - Held, interpretation to words "public view" as stated by complainant can be accepted. It will amount to legislating. Accordingly, contention that case under Section 3(1)(x) of Act is made out cannot be accepted.
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 - Section 7(1)(d) - Abuses and references - As to caste of complainant - Not made in public view - Plea to quash FIR for want of prima facie case under Atrocities Act - Contention that if not under said Act, case under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act made out. - Held, even though contents under Section 7(1)(d) are not made out but scope of Section 154 of Cr PC (FIR) is very clear and once FIR disclosing cognizable offence has been recorded it is for authorities to investigate and take action. Petition as to offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Atrocities Act is quashed, but as regards under Section 7(d)(1) of PCR Act no interference is called for.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989) - Section 3(1)(x) - Abuses and references - As to caste of complainant - Not made in public view - Plea to quash FIR as no prima facie case under Atrocities Act made out - Contention that if not under said Act, case under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act is made out. - Held, even though contents under Section 7(1)(d) are not made out but scope of Section 154 of Cr PC (FIR) is very clear and once FIR disclosing cognizable offence has been recorded it is for authorities to investigate and take action. Petition as to offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Atrocities Act concerned quashed, but as regards offence under Section 7(1)(d) of PCR Act no interference is called for.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989) -
Section 3(1)(x) - Humiliation in public view - Complaint - Petition for quashing of FIR - Based on ground that it does not disclose that insult or humiliation was caused to complainant in public view - Facts show that accusations and abuses related to caste of the complainant were made but not in public view. - Held, interpretation to words "public view" as stated by complainant can be accepted. It will amount to legislating on the legislature. Therefore, contention that case under Section 3(1)(x) of Act is made out cannot be accepted.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989) - Section 3(1)(x) - Offence under Section 3(1)(x). - Offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Act of insult or humiliation to member of S.C. or S.T. must be visible and audible to public. - Where the allegations in the complaint which relate to the acts by the petitioner in his closed cabin and in the absence of any stranger, it can hardly be said to be accusations by the petitioner to the complainant "within the public view". Therefore, the FIR registered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, against the petitioner is quashed. 2001 All MR (Cri) 219 - Relied on.
R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.
( 1 ) HEARD learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned A. P. P. for the respondents. Cri. W. P. No. 1324 of 2005 decided on 6-5-2005. (Bombay)
( 2 ) RULE. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.
( 3 ) APART from the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and the learned A. P. P. for the respondents, we have also heard the learned advocate for the complainant in the matter.
( 4 ) THE petitioner challenges the F. I. R. No. 133 of 2005 recorded on 30-4- 2005 at Cuffe Parade Police Station, Mumbai. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of the fact that the complaint lodged by the complainant nowhere discloses any offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act"), the police have registered the said F. I. R. against the petitioner under the said provisions of the Atrocities Act. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, while taking us through the complaint as well as placing reliance in the decision in matter of Bai @ Laxmibai w/o Nivratti Poul and ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2001 All MR (Cri.) 219, submitted that the complaint nowhere discloses any insult or humiliation caused to the complainant in a place within the public view and, therefore, there was no justification to register the F. I. R. alleging the offence having been committed by the petitioner punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act. The learned a. P. P. on the other hand, submitted that the statement made in the complaint apparently discloses insult to the complainant on account of he being belonging to the Scheduled Caste and further that even the provisions of section 3 (1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "civil act") are clearly attracted and considering the provisions of section 15 of the civil Act, the police are entitled to take cognizance of such offence and investigate into the matter. The learned advocate for the complainant submitted that though at the time the Atrocities Act was brought into force, it required the acts on the part of the accused to have been committed within the public view, taking into consideration the changed scenerio and the attempts being made by the people belonging to the upper caste and community to abuse the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the private places, the provision comprising under section 3 (1) (x) has to be harmoniously construed and the expression "public view" appearing in the said provision of law cannot be understood to have a restricted meaning. According to the learned advocate, considering the same, even the premises where the complainant was abused by the petitioner should be construed as the place "within the public view".
( 5 ) THE plain reading of the complaint filed by the complainant undoubtedly prima facie discloses various accusations against the complainant by the petitioner in the name of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It also prima facie discloses abuses having been uttered by the petitioner and addressed to the complainant on the ground of the complainant being a member of the scheduled Caste. However, as rightly submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the complaint nowhere discloses those accusations having been made in a place within the public view. In various decisions apart from the decision of bai @ Laxmibai, this Court has time and again held that the expression "within public view" has specific meaning and in order to attract the provisions of law under section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act, the acts amounting to insult or humiliation to the member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes should be visible and audible to the public. Otherwise, it would not amount to an offence under the said provision of law. Considering the same and considering the allegation
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
